Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 5:26 AM
26 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,204 Year: 15,240/19,786 Month: 1,963/3,058 Week: 337/404 Day: 4/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 196 of 457 (708048)
10-04-2013 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coyote
10-04-2013 12:56 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Of course they shouldn't limit their dictionaries to what creationists prefer, but they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know instead of defining things according to what the ToE requires them to infer. It may be that they actually believe it but it's still not right. They ASSUME that alleles are all created by mutations, and they ASSUME that mutations are the source of viable allelic variants, they do NOT know this, they assume it. 'cause the ToE needs it to be that way.

It's like Bible "translators" who write their own interpretations into the text. Yes, that happens in at least one modern version I know of.

You love to accuse creationists of basing everything on belief but the fact of the matter is that that's what evolutionists do but they are oblivious to it. And again what I've been arguing here is about actual facts in biology. Period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 12:56 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:46 AM Faith has responded
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 10-04-2013 11:45 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 273 by saab93f, posted 10-08-2013 6:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15325
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 197 of 457 (708049)
10-04-2013 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
10-03-2013 10:38 PM


Re: Back on topic
quote:

Interesting how dictionaries can be written to prove anything, such as that mutations are mere "variant forms that may be transmitted to future generations."

Dictionaries record the way that words are used. And anybody with any understanding of genetics would understand that that IS how the word "mutation" is used in genetics. Even creationists are happy to use that definition.

quote:

The ToE requires that it be so, therefore it is so.

I think that fact that is IS so has more to do with it....

quote:

No such thing has REALLY been proven but they can now just define it into existence so that it convinces people that it has been.

No. The fact is that these things exist and people use the word "mutation" to describe them. There is no special "true" meaning of the word "mutation" to contradict it.

quote:

Pure word magic.

Obviously not. The fact that a word is used to describe something is not in any way magic. It is your objections which seem to be founded on the idea of "word magic".

quote:

Whoever has the power runs the show. It sure isn't truth and reality running the show.

Well that doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously truth and reality DO have rather a lot to do with it. The truth and reality that that is how the word is used to describe things that are known to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7012
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 198 of 457 (708050)
10-04-2013 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
10-03-2013 5:31 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:

So I needed to say that EACH was formed from just a few individuals?

Well yes - just so's we're clear. But that wasn't the question - it was about this:

Seals in the one case, cats in the other. Really, that wasn't clear to you that I couldn't possibly have meant they both came from the same genotype?

They don't have the same genotype now so at what point was it the same?

They're not only completely different species but also genus, family and even sub-order; in fact they only meet under the heading of Carnivora.

The ToE tells us that these two modern species have a common ancestor some millions of years ago and changed over time by mutation and natural selection.

As far as I understand what you're claiming, both species (etc) came from the same genome 4500 years ago - I'm intrigued as to how and why we can't see evidence for it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 5:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:09 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 199 of 457 (708055)
10-04-2013 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
10-03-2013 10:33 AM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:

I should have said: It would be odd if no genetic analysis found differing allele frequencies in a daughter population because that is what I'm talking about.

Yes, I know you're talking about differing allele frequencies being the driving force behind speciation. If that were true then what scientists believe are descendant species should have only a subset of alleles of the parent species and no extra alleles not possessed by the parent species. But we never see this, so you're wrong.

I can't imagine what genetic analysis you'd be talking about, considering that what I'm describing is so common.

What you're describing is breeding, not speciation. Take the closely related horse and donkey. Obviously they share a common ancestor since they're still similar enough to interbreed, and we know plenty about their genetics. The horse has 32 chromosomes, the donkey 31, and both have genes and alleles of genes that the other does not have. Therefore you're wrong.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 200 of 457 (708056)
10-04-2013 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
10-03-2013 10:46 AM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:

Yes, of course I'm arguing with science directly here so of course you're going to object.

You're making things up, science studies reality, so you're actually arguing with reality.

If I could comment about another issue, the definitions of simple terms like mutation, gene and allele have not changed, and since they already have definitions you cannot assign them new ones. You'll need to come up with some short identifying phrases for any new concepts you'd like to introduce.

And if I could comment about one other issue, this thread isn't actually about your latest excursion into scientific fantasy. Frako wondered how people could so obstinately reject the simple evidence of reality. While you're providing an excellent example of the phenomenon, I don't think seeing it in action helps us understand exactly what is going on inside your head, at least not yet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 201 of 457 (708057)
10-04-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:46 AM


Re: This isn't about the dictionary...
by the reproductive isolation of a small number of individuals which naturally has less genetic diversity than the previous population.

And of course this is simply yet another case of you defining words, in this case breeding, that already have meanings. The fact remains though, that for cheetah's the reduction of diversity was not due to speciation, but to extinction of the more diverse population. So the cheetah does not support your position that evolution is like breeding.

The point is to talk about the method that forms breeds, not the condition of the breeds.

Not exactly. The point is your claim that the condition of the breeds, i.e. their lack of genetic diversity, arises from speciation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 457 (708058)
10-04-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
10-04-2013 1:09 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Of course they shouldn't limit their dictionaries to what creationists prefer, but they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know instead of defining things according to what the ToE requires them to infer.

Your behavior is childish.

If you don't think the definition of mutation reflects reality, that means you don't think mutations actually occur and not that the definition of mutation is wrong.

Unicorns don't exist and never have. That does not mean that the definition of unicorn as a creature with a horn extending from its forhead is wrong.

It's hilarious to listen to you pretend that there is actually some kind of organized Creation Science genetics that you know and we don't. Yet you haven't cited a single reference that suggests that there is some organized usage of the terms as you use them that (to paraphrase the infamous Justice Taney) anyone ought to give the least bit of respect.

Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 1:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 11:03 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:03 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 203 of 457 (708061)
10-04-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 10:46 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them.

This is what creationists do. And for them, as they frequently do, to claim that they are doing science is ludicrous. They are doing precisely the opposite of science.

As to the topic, "What is wrong with people?"

They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:46 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 11:07 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:12 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 884
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 204 of 457 (708062)
10-04-2013 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Coyote
10-04-2013 11:03 AM


Re: What's wrong!
They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma.

And don't forget playing the victim and claiming 'persecution' by the scientific 'elite'.


"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 11:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17152
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 205 of 457 (708065)
10-04-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
10-04-2013 1:09 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Faith writes:

...they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know....


If that was the standard, there wouldn't be anything in the dictionary about gods or religion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 1:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 206 of 457 (708066)
10-04-2013 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 10:46 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them.

What? Please provide a link to proof of this accusation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:46 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 12:29 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 207 of 457 (708069)
10-04-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Tangle
10-04-2013 7:20 AM


Re: Back on topic
As far as I understand what you're claiming, both species (etc) came from the same genome 4500 years ago - I'm intrigued as to how and why we can't see evidence for it.

I have no idea where you are getting such a ridiculous idea that I'd be saying such a thing. What you quoted offers no clue. They are separate species and nothing I said implied anything different that I can see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2013 7:20 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 208 of 457 (708070)
10-04-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Coyote
10-04-2013 11:03 AM


Re: What's wrong!
They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma.

Good definition of evolutionists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 11:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 12:37 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 209 of 457 (708071)
10-04-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
09-27-2013 11:18 AM


A start
Well, there are a few things that can help explain much of it, particularly in the US.

First, about a quarter century ago the voters in the US decided that reporting should be treated as a profit center and so only news that people wanted to buy should be published. In the name of fairness they abolished the Fairness Doctrine, cut funding for PBS, allowed media outlet conglomeration, removed the Chinese Wall between news and advertising or between reporting and editorializing.

Second, the US has a very large population of Biblical Christians who again, about a quarter century ago, put through a coup and took over one of the two major political parties and elected Ronald Reagan who totally disregarded the Constitution and all of the Principles of Conservatism and began implementing a plan to destroy the US and turn it into a Christian Fascist State.

The reason that Biblical Christians are such a threat is that they are indoctrinated in accepting falsehoods and never testing against reality as well as willfully repressing honesty. This begins with their unthinking acceptance of the Bible as "The Word" and denial of basic facts like the obvious errors in the Bible as well as the many, many conflicts, examples of tales evolving, inclusion of mutually exclusive versions of stories and the fact that there is not even a universal Canon.

To cap it off is the very human dislike of bad news, not wanting to admit that we created most of the problems for ourselves, an inability to take a long term view, almost no training in critical thinking within the US education system and the transformation of actual history into an epic tale where all the many faults of the US are suppressed.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 11:18 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 210 of 457 (708073)
10-04-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:03 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Faith writes:

What? Please provide a link to proof of this accusation.

Why are you asking for proof of what you just said a few messages ago in Message 193:

Faith in Message 193 writes:

Of course we are and it's a struggle against the evolutionist definitions which don't define things as we define them. Just to convey the simplest things requires me to qualify and qualify to try to get free of the evolutionist assumptions.

Right there you said that creationists define terms (like mutation and allele) differently from science. But this is wrong on two counts. First this is wrong because creationists as a group haven't actually attempted to redefine these terms. They pretty much use the same definitions everyone else uses. And second, this is wrong because independent of whether evolution is right or wrong, those words already have definitions.

It's hard to avoid the feeling that you're trying to distract attention from your ridiculous position on speciation by even more ridiculously inventing your own definitions. But neither speciation nor evolutionary terminology are the topic of this thread. If you wanted to discuss the topic you could perhaps explain the evidence that led you to your position on speciation. It certainly couldn't be evidence from breeding, because breeders never believe they're creating new species. That's why they're called breeders and not speciators. If you could give us a glimpse of your evidence and your reasoning process that would be very helpful.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019